DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cointegration Analysis in Hypothesis of Heteroschedasticity: the Wild Bootstrap Test

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cointegration Analysis in Hypothesis of Heteroschedasticity: the Wild Bootstrap Test STATISTICA, anno LXIII, n. 3, 2003 THE COINTEGRATION ANALYSIS IN HYPOTHESIS OF HETEROSCHEDASTICITY: THE WILD BOOTSTRAP TEST M. Gerolimetto, I. Procidano 1. INTRODUCTION The importance of the concept of cointegration (Engle, Granger, 1987) has in- creased in the recent years and it received much attention in the literature. Some of the seminal works are those of Johansen (1988, 1996), Phillips and Durlauf (1986), Phillips and Hansen (1990), Xiao and Phillips (1999). The cointegration analysis is usually carried out for macroeconomic and finan- cial time series that are often affected by heteroschedasticity. This aspect is ex- tremely relevant considering that homoschedasticity is one of the conditions un- derlying the applicability of the cointegration analysis procedures frequently used. So it is important to evaluate the robustness as regards heteroschedasticity of the procedures for the cointegration analysis and this is also the aim of this work. We consider and compare some traditional procedures and also an interesting pro- posal of a bootstrap test for cointegration. This test is originally a test for unit root (Procidano, Rigatti Luchini, 1999, 2000) which employs the bootstrap method called Wild Bootstrap. Most of the results about the estimators for non-stationary series are asymp- totic and their goodness has been evaluated by Montecarlo experiments, for ex- ample Schwert (1989), Diebold and Rudenbush (1991), Dejong et al. (1992). If the samples are finite, it seemed that the most frequently used tests exhibit serious level of size distortion and different powers. These results oriented the most recent researches about this theme to the de- velopment of new procedures of estimation and testing by using the bootstrap method. This is the context, where it is inserted the proposal of the Wild Boot- strap test for unit root, that we want here to extend to the cointegration analysis. In this work we want to compare, working by simulations, the robustness as regards heteroschedasticity of different procedures for cointegration analysis and, in particular, to verify if the Wild Bootstrap test is robust also in the context of the cointegration analysis. We consider the Dickey-Fuller test (DF: Dickey and Fuller, 1979), the Sargan-Bhargava test (DW: Sargan, Bhargava, 1983; Bhargava, 1986), the Johansen tests (Otrace and Omax: Johansen, 1988) and the Wild Bootstrap 604 M. Gerolimetto, I. Procidano test (B) in hypothesis of GARCH errors. This typology of heteroschedasticity has been chosen because it is considered general enough to represent the major part of situations of non-stationarity in variance, typical of several economical and fi- nancial time series. In this context, like in the unit root analysis (Procidano and Rigatti Luchini, 1999, 2000, 2001), the simulations show a robustness of the Wild Bootstrap test as regards heteroschedasticity, particularly for small samples. The article is organized as follows, section 2 introduces the notions of cointe- gration, section 3 explains the algorithm for the implementation of the wild Boot- strap Test, section 4 describes the simulation experiment, finally, section 5 con- cludes. 2. THE CONCEPT OF COINTEGRATION The idea of a cointegration relationship between two or, more in general n>2, time series was intuitively proposed by Granger (1983) and then successively for- malized in the following definition: given two time series x1,t and x2,t , both I(1), without drift and trend, if it exists a linear combination zxx EE (1) ttt121, 2 that is I(0), then x1,t and x2,t are cointegrated and Ƣ=(Ƣ1,Ƣ2) is called vector the cointegration. Moreover, if x1,t and x2,t are both I(1) and cointegrated, they are always gener- ated by the model ECM (Error Correction Mechanism) whose matricial formula- tion is the following: XX X tt Ƅƥ11 ơƢ()' tt 1 (2) where Xt=(x1,t, x2,t), ƥt=(ƥ1,t,ƥ2,t) is a white noise vector, Ƅ1 is a (2x2) matrix, Ƒ=ơƢ’ is a (2x2) matrix of rank 1, ơ=(ơ1,ơ2) is called speed of adjustment and Ƣ=(Ƣ1,Ƣ2) is the cointegration vector. Different procedures can be used to test for the existence of a cointegration re- lationship and they can be classified in two groups. The first group includes the “two steps procedures”: in the first step the cointegration relationship is esti- mated by a regression between the variables, in the second step the null hypothe- sis of unit root in the residuals is verified by the usual tests for unit root. Among the “two steps procedures” there are the Dickey-Fuller Test (DF), the Sargan- Bhargava Test (DW) and the Wild Bootstrap Test (B). More precisely, given the following model: xxttt D 1 H t = 1,2,…T (3) where ƥt is a white noise with Ƴ2 variance, the statistic of the Dicey-Fuller test is: The cointegration analysis in hypothesis of heteroschedasticity: the wild bootstrap test 605 1/2 §·T ˆ 1 2 WD ( 1)S ¨¸ ¦xt 1 (4) ©¹t 1 1 T §·§·TT 21 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 where ST (2)(¦ xxtt D 1 ) and D ¨¦¦xxtt11 ¸¨¸ x t t 1 ©tt 11 ¹©¹ The statistic of the Sargan-Bhargava test is: TT 22 Rxx11 ¦¦()()tt xx t (5) tt 11 The second group includes the formulations that work directly on the time se- ries, for example the Johansen test proposed in 1988. In this procedure the hy- pothesis of no cointegration is tested analysing the rank of the matrix Ƒ=ơƢ’ by maximum likelihood techniques. Johansen proposed two statistics: n ˆ Otrace T ¦ log(1 Oi ) (6) ir 1 and ˆ OOmax T log(1 r 1 ) (7) ˆ ’ where Oi are the eigenvalues of the matrix Ƒ=ơƢ of the ECM model, T is the sample size and r, 0 d r <n is the rank of the Ƒ matrix. From the several works with comparisons among different cointegration tests (for example Podivinsky, 1998; Haug, 1996) it results that the performances are quite different. These results imply for the applied researchers that more than one cointegration test should be applied. In general, most of the Monte Carlo studies reveal a trade off between power and size distortions of the cointegration tests, even though the least size distortion is exhibited (but only for high sample size) by the Johansen tests. 3. THE WILD BOOTSTRAP TEST The B test proposed by Procidano and Rigatti Luchini (1999, 2000) to test for a unit root refers to the resample method proposed by Wu in 1986. This method is robust as regards heteroschedasticity and it consists of carrying out extractions from an external distribution with zero mean and unit variance whose choice represents a subjectivity element (Davidson and Flaichaire, 2000) that does not seem to significantly modify the results. The following is the general explanation of algorithm for the implementation of the B test: 606 M. Gerolimetto, I. Procidano 1 - We generate a time series xt from the model (3) in the null hypothesis ơ=1; 2 - We calculate the value of the ƴ statistics; 3 - We generate a replication of xt with the wild bootstrap and then we calculate the value of the ƴ statistics (indicated by ƴ*) on this replication; 4 - We repeat the step 3 J times: so we obtain the empirical distribution of ƴ*; 5 - We calculate the percentile corresponding the level of the test (1-Ƥ): we obtain so the extreme limit of the acceptance region with the wild bootstrap; 6 - We register if the statistics ƴ does not belong to the MacKinnon acceptance region or to the acceptance region calculated with the wild bootstrap following step 5; 7 - we repeat steps 1-2-3-4-5-6 N times: we obtain so the rejects proportion as regards the acceptance region calculated with the wild bootstrap. When the B test is inserted in a context of cointegration analysis, the algorithm above described is applied to the residuals of the regression among the variables with the aim of establishing if the same residuals contain a unit root i.e. if the variables are cointegrated. 4. THE SIMULATION EXPERIMENT In this section the performance of the B test is compared to that of the other cointegration tests. The comparison has been carried out by the simulation of 5000 time series of length T = 25, 50, 100, 200 for each of the two following schemes, partially referring to what Lee and Tse did in their work in 1996: 1) In the experiment for examining the size of the tests we generate non coin- tegrated systems with GARCH (1,1) errors. Let Xt=(x1t,x2t, …,xNt)’ be an Nx1 vector of integrated series with X t ƥt (8) The error vector ƥt=(e1t,e2t,…,eNt)’ is assumed to follow an N-variate conditional 2 2 normal distribution with E(eitɇFt-1)=0 and E(eit ɇFt-1)=Ƴit , where i = 1,2,…N, Ft-1 is the Ƴ-field generated by all the information available at time t-1 and 2 VIIIVit i0 iit 1,1e i ,2,1 it (9) 2) In the experiment for examinig the power of the tests we generate bivariate cointegrated systems with GARCH (1,1) errors. The system generated is xxx1,t 0.2( 1, ttt 1 2, 1 ) H 1, (10) x 2,tt H 2, The cointegration analysis in hypothesis of heteroschedasticity: the wild bootstrap test 607 In the first case, the simulations permit to evaluate the size distortion of the different tests of cointegration expressed as proportion of rejects of the null hy- pothesis, in the second case the power of the different tests is estimated. The parameters of the GARCH model have been chosen like in Procidano and Rigatti Luchini (1999, 2000, 2001) i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Proposal
    Effects of Contract Farming on Productivity and Income of Farmers in Production of Tea in Phu Tho Province, Vietnam Anh Tru Nguyen MSc (University of the Philippines Los Baños) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Newcastle Business School Faculty of Business and Law The University of Newcastle Australia February 2019 Statement of Originality I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under normal supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being examined, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and any approved embargo. Anh Tru Nguyen Date: 19/02/2019 i Acknowledgement of Authorship I hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis contains a published paper work of which I am a joint author. I have included as part of the thesis a written statement, endorsed by my supervisor, attesting to my contribution to the joint publication work. Anh Tru Nguyen Date: 19/02/2019 ii Publications This thesis comprises the following published article and conference papers. I warrant that I have obtained, where necessary, permission from the copyright owners to use any third party copyright material reproduced in the thesis, or to use any of my own published work in which the copyright is held by another party.
    [Show full text]
  • The Johansen Tests for Cointegration
    The Johansen Tests for Cointegration Gerald P. Dwyer April 2015 Time series can be cointegrated in various ways, with details such as trends assuming some importance because asymptotic distributions depend on the presence or lack of such terms. I will focus on the simple case of one unit root in each of the variables with no constant terms or other deterministic terms. These notes are a quick summary of some results without derivations. Cointegration and Eigenvalues The Johansen test can be seen as a multivariate generalization of the augmented Dickey- Fuller test. The generalization is the examination of linear combinations of variables for unit roots. The Johansen test and estimation strategy { maximum likelihood { makes it possible to estimate all cointegrating vectors when there are more than two variables.1 If there are three variables each with unit roots, there are at most two cointegrating vectors. More generally, if there are n variables which all have unit roots, there are at most n − 1 cointegrating vectors. The Johansen test provides estimates of all cointegrating vectors. Just as for the Dickey-Fuller test, the existence of unit roots implies that standard asymptotic distributions do not apply. Slight digression for an assertion: If there are n variables and there are n cointegrating vectors, then the variables do not have unit roots. Why? Because the cointegrating vectors 1Results generally go through for quasi-maximum likelihood estimation. 1 can be written as scalar multiples of each of the variables alone, which implies
    [Show full text]
  • Testing for Cointegration When Some of The
    EconometricTheory, 11, 1995, 984-1014. Printed in the United States of America. TESTINGFOR COINTEGRATION WHEN SOME OF THE COINTEGRATINGVECTORS ARE PRESPECIFIED MICHAELT.K. HORVATH Stanford University MARKW. WATSON Princeton University Manyeconomic models imply that ratios, simpledifferences, or "spreads"of variablesare I(O).In these models, cointegratingvectors are composedof l's, O's,and - l's and containno unknownparameters. In this paper,we develop tests for cointegrationthat can be appliedwhen some of the cointegratingvec- tors are prespecifiedunder the null or underthe alternativehypotheses. These tests are constructedin a vectorerror correction model and are motivatedas Waldtests from a Gaussianversion of the model. Whenall of the cointegrat- ing vectorsare prespecifiedunder the alternative,the tests correspondto the standardWald tests for the inclusionof errorcorrection terms in the VAR. Modificationsof this basictest are developedwhen a subsetof the cointegrat- ing vectorscontain unknown parameters. The asymptoticnull distributionsof the statisticsare derived,critical values are determined,and the local power propertiesof the test are studied.Finally, the test is appliedto data on for- eign exchangefuture and spot pricesto test the stabilityof the forward-spot premium. 1. INTRODUCTION Economic models often imply that variables are cointegrated with simple and known cointegrating vectors. Examples include the neoclassical growth model, which implies that income, consumption, investment, and the capi- tal stock will grow in a balanced way, so that any stochastic growth in one of the series must be matched by corresponding growth in the others. Asset This paper has benefited from helpful comments by Neil Ericsson, Gordon Kemp, Andrew Levin, Soren Johansen, John McDermott, Pierre Perron, Peter Phillips, James Stock, and three referees.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cointegrated VAR and Granger Causality Analysis F
    CBN Journal of Applied Statistics Vol. 2 No.2 15 Foreign Private Investment and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A Cointegrated VAR and Granger causality analysis F. Z. Abdullahi1, S. Ladan1 and Haruna R. Bakari2 This research uses a cointegration VAR model to study the contemporaneous long-run dynamics of the impact of Foreign Private Investment (FPI), Interest Rate (INR) and Inflation rate (IFR) on Growth Domestic Products (GDP) in Nigeria for the period January 1970 to December 2009. The Unit Root Test suggests that all the variables are integrated of order 1. The VAR model was appropriately identified using AIC information criteria and the VECM model has exactly one cointegration relation. The study further investigates the causal relationship using the Granger causality analysis of VECM which indicates a uni-directional causality relationship between GDP and FDI at 5% which is in line with other studies. The result of Granger causality analysis also shows that some of the variables are Ganger causal of one another; the null hypothesis of non-Granger causality is rejected at 5% level of significance for these variables. Keywords: Cointegration, VAR, Granger Causality, FPI, Economic Growth JEL Classification: G32, G24 1.0 Introduction The use of Vector Autoregressive Models (VAR) and Vector Error Correction Models (VECM) for analyzing dynamic relationships among financial variables has become common in the literature, Granger (1981), Engle and Granger (1987), MacDonald and Power (1995) and Barnhill, et al. (2000). The popularity of these models has been associated with the realization that relationships among financial variables are so complex that traditional time-series models have failed to fully capture.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks a Study on the Chinese Stock Markets
    Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks A study on the Chinese stock markets Authors: Supervisor: Andrea P.G. Kratz Frederik Lundtofte Heli M.K. Raulamo VT 2011 Abstract A large number of studies have shown that macroeconomic variables can explain co- movements in stock market returns in developed markets. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether this relation also holds in China’s two stock markets. By doing a heteroscedastic cointegration analysis, the long run relation is investigated. The results show that it is difficult to determine if a cointegrating relationship exists. This could be caused by conditional heteroscedasticity and possible structural break(s) apparent in the sample. Keywords: cointegration, conditional heteroscedasticity, structural break, China, global financial crisis Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. The Chinese stock market ...................................................................................................... 5 3. Previous research .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Stock market and macroeconomic variables ................................................................ 7 3.2. The Chinese market ..................................................................................................... 9 4. Theory .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18 Cointegration
    RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Lecture 18 Cointegration 1 Spurious Regression • Suppose yt and xt are I(1). We regress yt against xt. What happens? • The usual t-tests on regression coefficients can show statistically significant coefficients, even if in reality it is not so. • This the spurious regression problem (Granger and Newbold (1974)). • In a Spurious Regression the errors would be correlated and the standard t-statistic will be wrongly calculated because the variance of the errors is not consistently estimated. Note: This problem can also appear with I(0) series –see, Granger, Hyung and Jeon (1998). 1 RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Spurious Regression - Examples Examples: (1) Egyptian infant mortality rate (Y), 1971-1990, annual data, on Gross aggregate income of American farmers (I) and Total Honduran money supply (M) ŷ = 179.9 - .2952 I - .0439 M, R2 = .918, DW = .4752, F = 95.17 (16.63) (-2.32) (-4.26) Corr = .8858, -.9113, -.9445 (2). US Export Index (Y), 1960-1990, annual data, on Australian males’ life expectancy (X) ŷ = -2943. + 45.7974 X, R2 = .916, DW = .3599, F = 315.2 (-16.70) (17.76) Corr = .9570 (3) Total Crime Rates in the US (Y), 1971-1991, annual data, on Life expectancy of South Africa (X) ŷ = -24569 + 628.9 X, R2 = .811, DW = .5061, F = 81.72 (-6.03) (9.04) Corr = .9008 Spurious Regression - Statistical Implications • Suppose yt and xt are unrelated I(1) variables. We run the regression: y t x t t • True value of β=0. The above is a spurious regression and et ∼ I(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Linear Restrictions on Cointegration Vectors: Sizes and Powers of Wald Tests in Finite Samples
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Haug, Alfred A. Working Paper Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples Technical Report, No. 1999,04 Provided in Cooperation with: Collaborative Research Center 'Reduction of Complexity in Multivariate Data Structures' (SFB 475), University of Dortmund Suggested Citation: Haug, Alfred A. (1999) : Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples, Technical Report, No. 1999,04, Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475 - Komplexitätsreduktion in Multivariaten Datenstrukturen, Dortmund This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/77134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung
    [Show full text]
  • SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX a Time Series Model of Interest Rates
    SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX A Time Series Model of Interest Rates With the Effective Lower Bound⇤ Benjamin K. Johannsen† Elmar Mertens Federal Reserve Board Bank for International Settlements April 16, 2018 Abstract This appendix contains supplementary results as well as further descriptions of computa- tional procedures for our paper. Section I, describes the MCMC sampler used in estimating our model. Section II describes the computation of predictive densities. Section III reports ad- ditional estimates of trends and stochastic volatilities well as posterior moments of parameter estimates from our baseline model. Section IV reports estimates from an alternative version of our model, where the CBO unemployment rate gap is used as business cycle measure in- stead of the CBO output gap. Section V reports trend estimates derived from different variable orderings in the gap VAR of our model. Section VI compares the forecasting performance of our model to the performance of the no-change forecast from the random-walk model over a period that begins in 1985 and ends in 2017:Q2. Sections VII and VIII describe the particle filtering methods used for the computation of marginal data densities as well as the impulse responses. ⇤The views in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve Board, any other person in the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. Any errors or omissions should be regarded as solely those of the authors. †For correspondence: Benjamin K. Johannsen, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington D.C. 20551. email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6 Volume Author/Editor: Olivier Jean Blanchard and Stanley Fischer, editors Volume Publisher: MIT Press Volume ISBN: 0-262-02335-0 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/blan91-1 Conference Date: March 8-9, 1991 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots Chapter Author: John Y. Campbell, Pierre Perron Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10983 Chapter pages in book: (p. 141 - 220) JohnY. Campbelland PierrePerron PRINCETONUNIVERSITY AND NBER/PRINCETONUNIVERSITY AND CRDE Pitfalls and Opportunities:What MacroeconomistsShould Know about Unit Roots* 1. Introduction The field of macroeconomics has its share of econometric pitfalls for the unwary applied researcher. During the last decade, macroeconomists have become aware of a new set of econometric difficulties that arise when one or more variables of interest may have unit roots in their time series representations. Standard asymptotic distribution theory often does not apply to regressions involving such variables, and inference can go seriously astray if this is ignored. In this paper we survey unit root econometrics in an attempt to offer the applied macroeconomist some reliable guidelines. Unit roots can create opportunities as well as problems for applied work. In some unit root regressions, coefficient estimates converge to the true parameter values at a faster rate than they do in standard regressions with stationary variables. In large samples, coefficient estimates with this property are robust to many types of misspecification, and they can be treated as known in subsequent empiri- cal exercises.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Dimensional Predictive Regression in the Presence Of
    High-dimensional predictive regression in the presence of cointegration⇤ Bonsoo Koo Heather Anderson Monash University Monash University Myung Hwan Seo† Wenying Yao Seoul National University Deakin University Abstract We propose a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) estimator of a predictive regression in which stock returns are conditioned on a large set of lagged co- variates, some of which are highly persistent and potentially cointegrated. We establish the asymptotic properties of the proposed LASSO estimator and validate our theoreti- cal findings using simulation studies. The application of this proposed LASSO approach to forecasting stock returns suggests that a cointegrating relationship among the persis- tent predictors leads to a significant improvement in the prediction of stock returns over various competing forecasting methods with respect to mean squared error. Keywords: Cointegration, High-dimensional predictive regression, LASSO, Return pre- dictability. JEL: C13, C22, G12, G17 ⇤The authors acknowledge financial support from the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP150104292. †Corresponding author. His work was supported by Promising-Pioneering ResearcherProgram through Seoul National University(SNU) and from the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the Na- tional Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-0405-20180026). Author contact details are [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Return predictability has been of perennial interest to financial practitioners and scholars within the economics and finance professions since the early work of Dow (1920). To this end, empirical studies employ linear predictive regression models, as illustrated by Stam- baugh (1999), Binsbergen et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process
    1017-01 BPEA/Sims 12/30/02 14:48 Page 1 CHRISTOPHER A. SIMS Princeton University The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process This is a paper on the way data relate to decisionmaking in central banks. One component of the paper is based on a series of interviews with staff members and a few policy committee members of four central banks: the Swedish Riksbank, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. These interviews focused on the policy process and sought to determine how forecasts were made, how uncertainty was characterized and handled, and what role formal economic models played in the process at each central bank. In each of the four central banks, “subjective” forecasting, based on data analysis by sectoral “experts,” plays an important role. At the Federal Reserve, a seventeen-year record of model-based forecasts can be com- pared with a longer record of subjective forecasts, and a second compo- nent of this paper is an analysis of these records. Two of the central banks—the Riksbank and the Bank of England— have explicit inflation-targeting policies that require them to set quantita- tive targets for inflation and to publish, several times a year, their forecasts of inflation. A third component of the paper discusses the effects of such a policy regime on the policy process and on the role of models within it. The large models in use in central banks today grew out of a first generation of large models that were thought to be founded on the statisti- cal theory of simultaneous-equations models.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics
    Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics Jozef Barunik IES, FSV, UK Summer Semester 2010/2011 Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 1 / 18 Introduction Readings Readings 1 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2003): Time Series Econometrics: Cointegration and Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity, downloadable from: http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/∼steele/HoldingPen/NobelPrizeInfo.pdf 2 Granger,C.W.J. (2003): Time Series, Cointegration and Applications, Nobel lecture, December 8, 2003 3 Harris Using Cointegration Analysis in Econometric Modelling, 1995 (Useful applied econometrics textbook focused solely on cointegration) 4 Almost all textbooks cover the introduction to cointegration Engle-Granger procedure (single equation procedure), Johansen multivariate framework (covered in the following lecture) Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 2 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Robert F. Engle and Clive W.J. Granger Robert F. Engle shared the Nobel prize (2003) \for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH) with Clive W.
    [Show full text]